Friday, November 16, 2012

Hitchstory 101 - the myth of Christopher Hitchens

Christopher Hitchens, for both of you who haven't heard of him, was a journalist, author, supposed contrarian and "anti-theist" (his term). Hitchens' childhood was one of somewhat upper middle class English manners. His father was a British naval officer and his mother doted on Christopher. However, his parents' marriage was unhappy and in 1973 his mother committed suicide along with her lover, a defrocked Anglican clergyman.

Hitchens' rise to fame charted the usual course of a latter day British journalist: campus trotskyite and agitator. He was deeply involved in leftist student causes at Oxford University and his writings on political matters brought him to the attention of the editors of the agitprop magazine, "International Socialism". His polemics made him moderately well known in British left wing circles.

Hitchens moved from one British magazine to another, as a writer and editor. However, his star didn't really commence its great ascending until he moved to America in the early 80's. Once here, he became a critic of most things American. His favorite targets being Henry Kissinger, Ronald Reagan and GHW Bush. He also took to sniping at Mother Teresa.

He finally landed at the pop culture magazine, Vanity Fair. His anti-religious streak found a warm home at Vanity Fair and he authored many articles attacking religion. All Religion was detestible in Hitchens' mind. And while he loathed Islam, he had an especially hot spot in his heart for Christianity. He began speaking about his anti-theism - as well as writing on it. This public outspokeness eventually turned into formal debates with theists of various stripes.

As an apostle for atheism Hitchens found his great calling. He excelled as a public debater. Not for the coherence or cogency of his arguments, which were often digressive, irrational and/or irrelevent, but for his charisma, wit, sexy baritone and posh English accent - which he never lost despite living in the US for some thirty years and becoming an American citizen.

As a much in demand debater, Hitchens barnstormed the country preaching the gospel of atheism. Becoming along the way America's favorite atheist. University students in particular loved him. His chatty, somewhat boozy, persona set them at ease. His suave English voice and effortless verbosity made them, osmosis-like, feel intelligent too. He was a singularly impressive speaker - though considerably less so to those who held knowledge on matters he spoke of and/or who analyzed his arguments. His main impact on the world was that of a gifted wordsmith. His thoughts however were another matter: beneath the veneer of eloquence, civility and wit crouched a sadly disordered mind and soul.

Hitchens was a dishonest man. Not in the occasional sense that most of us are. Hitchens was actively dishonest. He drank deep from the well of dishonesty - then spewed it all back out. However, he was highly intelligent and covered his dishonesty with a swarm of multisyllabic words delivered in English upper class tones. His debates were bravura performances. Hitchens actually had read some of the Bible and knew some of its stories and verses. However, like a Jehovah's Witness, he knew only a few that seemed to support his arguments, and then misrepresented these.

Being a supernatural as well as historical record the Bible can be read different ways. Hitchens always applied his materialistic worldview to any reading of it. He would then attack his reading of it. The university audiences seemed to rarely noticed this straw man deception.

Despite his popularity among fellow atheists - who like to crow about how Hitchens "destroyed" this or that religious position, Hitchens' debates were actually masterpieces of illogicality, factual misstatement and outright lying. Cheap potshots for the most part that barely scratched let alone destroyed religion. When one reads his words, rather than just hears them, the flaws in his thinking become more apparent. When one looks into his assertions it becomes clear that some of what he says is quite wrong. In some instances he just lies.

In one supposed lambasting of Christianity Hitchens' states, "Stalin was a seminary graduate." In truth, Stalin (who was known as Josef Djugashvili in those days) was EXPELLED from his seminary.

He also claimed, "Fascism has only arisen in Catholic countries." First, we must note he doesn't say what "fascism" actually is. Hitchens just raises a bogeyman to excite feelings in his audience. Second, the US certainly meets much of the accepted criteria for "fascism": nationalism... authoritarianism... government/industrial collaboration.... Is the US a "Catholic country"? What about pre-WW2 Japan? What about Indonesia under Suharto? Here and elsewhere Hitchens commits what is called the "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" logical fallacy. This fallacy is often seen in children and animals: something follows another, therefore it was caused by the former.

In a debate with the mathematician philosopher, Dr. John Lennox, Hitchens sniffed: "What is more likely: that a "virgin" would conceive "miraculously", or that she conceived in the usual way?" He then goes on to attack the virgin birth of Christ as a "bronze age myth" - even though the iron age had been in full swing for nearly 1200 years by the time of Jesus' birth.

Here he commits several interesting fallacies. First, he quotes the Bible as his authority - in order to disprove the Bible!

Next he commits a denying the antecedent fallacy: "If virgins could conceive we would see more of it. We don't see more of it. Therefore, virgins don't conceive." Next to raise its ugly head is an argument from ignorance fallacy: "What is more likely: that a "virgin" would conceive "miraculously", or that she conceived in the usual way? Therefore, there is no reason for believing that a virgin could conceive miraculously." Except for the historical record....

Also, nature shows that unfertilized females can and do conceive. It's called parthenogenesis:

Hitchens, ever the evolutionist, either didn't know this acknowledged fact, or he ignored it because it didn't suport his pre-"conceived" notion. Ergo, he was speaking ignorantly and/or dishonestly.

He argued that Isaiah, which speaks of a "virgin conceiving" is a mistranslation of the original Hebrew, "In Hebrew it says a young woman shall conceive." Here he is ignorant of, or ignores, the fact that the Hebrew Bible, some 150 years before Jesus, was translated by seventy-two Jewish scholars into Greek: the Septuagint. The seventy two scholars agreed that "virgin" was the correct translation from the Hebrew. Of course, Hitchens being the self endorsing polymath he was, knew the Bible more than they ever could have....

One could go on a long time about this vain and devious man, but life is short. Hitchens' unquestionable gifts were corrupted by his bloated ego. He still enjoys a considerable following among gullible, porn loving university types - who see him as a sort of atheistic demi-urge.

Hitchens died in December 2011, of esophageal cancer. Esophageal cancer gives early warning signs of its presence, but Hitchens ignored them, preferring to pour himself another whiskey sour. He ignored the signs his own body was giving him exactly as he ignored the signs God was giving him. Considering all the distilled dishonesty he imbibed, then vomited back up, it is perhaps not too ironic that things would end for him as they did.

74 comments:

You must be one of those people who thinks they are going to die..., "the easy way". As with everyone else he debated, you would have been destroyed by Mr. Hitchens. And all the christian apologists couldn't put jesus back together again. Slowly the blood cult myth clone is dying off and eventually it will be an exhibit in a museum for future generations to be alarmed by. "You mean they use to tell their children about a place where your skin burns off your bones for an eternity for not believing some man existed thousands of years ago? Wow." Yes children, our ancestors had quite a number of problems. Judging people by their skin color and sexual preference. It was a very dark period of time. But the human spirit was stronger than the fear based beliefs of the 3 headed monster. Amen.

This page is horiblle,"ignored the signs god was giving him"??what god?which one of 3500 of them?You disgust me,truly.It just bugs you that the only actual people that were inteligent or normal were atheists and not religious people,actually religion has alway pulled back the human mind in its development burning scientists that said that the worl ISNT flat and that the Earth revolves around the Sun and not the other way around.Read a few good books instead of the bible all the time for the bible is a bunch of desert storyes for children and full of imorality,rasism,descrimination for women,sadizm and sick acts like human sacrifice.You are all narow minded people and I feel sorry for you.

Looks like you've rattled a few cages with your spot on 'obituary' of the late ungreat Christopher Hitchens, Fitz.If I were an atheist, I'd be embarrassed by HellFire and Rokotanta.I've just watched, on Youtube, a debate between Hitchens and Professor William Lane Craig; take it from me, Lane Craig destroys Hitchens. Even atheists admitted as much.

I cannot fault anything that Fitz said about Hitchens.Atheists are fundamentally dishonest. When all's said and done, they are not atheists because of science or the 'problem of evil'. No, they are atheists because of their lifestyle: they don't want God, to whom they will have to give an account of their actions, to exist.

One thing is even more sure. Just like studies by Michael Blume and Eric Kauffman have proved (and very well) evolution indeed favors religious people and rejects atheists. And this is indeed deep on roots of modern humans - more than 150 000 years old fact.

the quote you're talking about is a quote of david hume that hitchens often used. It actually goes, in reference to the virgin birth," what is more likely, that the whole of the natural order be suspended, or that a jewish minx should tell a lie?"

You reject belief in God on the basis that He is a "complex and unproven being", yet it seems that you believe in the "Holocaust" which is the biggest hoax ever forced upon gullible humanity. If asked which is more likely to be true: the existence of God or the that 6 million Jews were exterminated using bug spray I know which one I think is more likely.

Since you seem so interested ignorance and dishonesty of Christopher Hitchens. Let's take a closer look at some of yours from this polemic.

The "Bronze Age myth" Hitchens is referring to is the fact that virgin and miraculous births have been claimed by may ancient peoples dating as far back as the bronze age. This is described in detail in his book' God is not Great' if you have read it?

By your own admission "the Bible can be read different ways" so following your logic a supernatural reading and representation of the book would also be a straw man deception. Which is of course preposterous.

Stalin was expelled from the Tiflis Theological Seminary in what is now Tbilisi not SHORTLY after entering it as you claim, but after 5 YEARS when he was 19 in 1899.

You have not provided a source for your Hitchens/Fascism claims. However he is on record as having defined it as an 'early 20C totalitarian ideology beginning in Italy' and propagating out around Europe. To which he correctly ascribes the complicity or direct involvement of the catholic church. So let's hear the whole story rather than soundbites that suit you.

Your comment about Fascism in the U.S. is textbook straw man by the way.

Your own wiki citation on parthenogenesis states clearly that no case has ever been recorded in mammals outside of labs. (and only inside labs with human embryos in the last 10 years). So here we have a logical fallacy that makes as much sense as saying that cows can lay eggs.

If people want to read the words of a "vain and devious man....corrupted by his bloated ego." They don't have to go any further than CITIZENFITZ

Oh well, could it be that belief in god is like taking black paint to the intellect?

How brave you must feel attacking a dead man. How powerful you must feel taking the authority of your god on yourself (judging whose gets to go to hell as you do). Yours is a tiny world of little consequence, as is the realm of all men who attack the mighty. Repent from your stupidity, and you might be able to enjoy a few more free years yet.

Since you're obviously a religious fellow, it's obvious your mind has been made up (probably by others during your childhood indoctrination), and you will have a scriptural answer to counter any logical atheist argument (picking and choosing from appropriate interpretations of scripture of course).

That's one thing that religion seems to be quite good at though; avoiding scrutiny through the mechanism of it's lack of specificity. One may choose to read a verse this way or that depending on the argument you are trying to counter. There are countless similar baked-in mechanisms hard coded into the various faiths: how else would people be able to buy it?

As an atheist I don't rule out the possibility, however unlikely it may seem, that there could be a higher intelligence in the Universe at large that we may not perceive within our limited frame of reference. But the very idea that, depending on what book you read, the son of such a being appeared in the Middle East a couple of thousand years ago and died for the 'sins' of the human race... I can't take that idea seriously.

As Feynman said, it's not in proportion, it's to local, too provincial.

I stand by my rationale that religion is ultimately a security blanket for those who fear death. People who want to cling to the idea their 'soul' will somehow be saved and live on in paradise when their mortal body expires, while the unbelievers burn in hell. To me this reeks of denial and a kind of obscene superiority complex.

Get real... the liklihood is that when you die, your consciousness will expire along with your body. What will that be like? You won't know because you won't be there to experience it. Hard to get your head around, but you didn't get your head around anything before you were born either. Stop clinging to ridiculous fantasy and live your life NOW because if you think it's going to carry on beyond they grave, the odds aren't in your favour.

The "fact" is that there are no facts about what one faces after death.. judgement, heaven, hell, purgatory or otherwise. What doesn't look good is your foolish speculation about Hitchen's current status. Even Jesus said judge not lest you be judged. For your judgement of Hitch, I judge you to be a liar and a fool that will soon be pile of waste material covered in maggots.

Er, have you overlooked the personal attacks and namecallings of some of the fans of Hitchens? I find it hilarious that all these atheists are butthurt over Fitz's accurate picture of Hitchens when Hitchens revelled in writing defamatory pieces about whomsoever he happened to dislike.

Did Hitchens say, "Oops," or did you say that for him after his death? Is the picture of flames in the background something you created or are they legitimate images from a picture obtained from the afterlife? If you created these images(as we know you did) then you are as deceitful, despicable and vile an individual as the religion you propagate.

Exactly. I think in that situation it's more likely that Hitchens would be as unrepentant as he was in life. Indeed, he would probably be holding God responsible for the wicked act of sending a man to Hell for the simple act of not believing something he was given no good reason to believe. He would be quite right to do so, too.

It is interesting that any of the arguments you've made above could have been made by a devout Muslim man who thinks Hitchens is in hell for the same reasons. It is profoundly bewildering to me, outside the scope of our currently, culturally acceptable faith, Christianity, that one should know the fate of Hitchens after death. He argued for reason all his life, and you have given no proof for any of your claims. You have only insulted him and his family, often without proof, again, and therefore relinquished the validity of your argument.

I'm rather enjoying the verbal ass beating that is being committed on Citizenfitz, but this person seems so delusional that it's rather like choosing to debate the mentally handicapped. Although, you can't feel too bad for a person that's invited it on themselves.

I always find it amusing when Americans think that people who live here should "lose their accent". Do you not realize that we are the ones with the accent? If that is impossible for you to understand, consider this : if you lived in Ireland for 25 years, would you develop an Irish accent? If you lived in Australia for 30 years, would you come out talking like an Australian? (hint : the answer is "no"). If you possessed one tenth the erudition or intelligence of a Christopher Hitchens, you'd still qualify as a genius. However, you miss that fraction by a much larger fraction.

I was going to leave a comment, but everyone else flayed you appropriately. If your god is so bloody loving and kind, why create cancer in the first place? Oh right, human sin.... ok, next question.... parthenogenesis.... in 2007 HUMANS (read - SCIENTISTS) brought this to the table in the human form, through science. If you're going to quote something, at least read it first, it does NOT support your argument.

Well, a person's lifestyle is often a contributory factor when it comes to cancer and other diseases. Whether you like it or not, our actions have consequences both temporal and eternal. All atheists, no matter how clever and educated they are seem to suffer from arrested development. They come across like rebellious adolescents who want to take no responsibility for their own actions.

Reading the hysterical, irrational rants of the atheists who have responded to your article, Fitz, I have to conclude that though they feel free to attack the beliefs of Theists they cannot stand having their own sacred cows attacked. I also find their pious, hypocritical concern with "not attacking the dead" rather amusing.

He had balls bigger than your brains,you are so fucking ignorants,you will die to,the difference is that you all wasted your life worshipping a cave man.Please use condoms,we don't need other stupid fucks in this world.

So, Fitz is wasting his life while Hitchens, whose addictions contributed to his own untimely demise, didn't waste his life?. You must be mad!Of course; the world doesn't need more Citizen Fitz's: what it needs is more drunken, nihilistic, self-destructive perverts, such as Hitchens, and his foul-mouthed accolytes, such as Florin cristian Ailenei.

You state that you think you could have given the Hitch a run for his money. Ignoring the factual errors you've made in this post, I'd like to take you up on that in lieu of Hitchens's absence. Are you up to the task?

Mary C - You are not representative of the Christian faith - your hatred and contempt for your fellow humans demeans us all. You come across as a bitter spiteful person who would have enjoyed burning Hitchen's at the stake. It's a shame that righteous pious types of believers such as yourself exist. To hell with you unless you mend your ways. I suggest you read your hateful vile comments abovee and see if Jesus would think that your thoughts represent his teachings. Athiests often provide a much needed balance in this world - perhaps there wouldn't be so many of them in this world if there were less of you. I suggest your faith is built on hatred and that your anger only comes from the feasr thsat you still hold of being wrong - otherwsie - where does your anger come from? Don't blame it on Hitch

So, 'Unknown' (and unknowing). I take it that you are one of these liberal 'Christians' who believe that Christian Charity is about being'nice'and not 'giving offense'. Atheists provide a much needed balance in the world!? I've heard it all now.I notice you wheel out the favourite meme of 'Christian' liberals WWJD? Have you read some of the harsh things that Jesus had to say in the Bible to the incorrigible?confirming atheists in their atheism by is NOT true charity.

Can you imagine the level of wisdom MaryC could have achieved in the three years she has monitored the reactions to Fitz's trifling scribble? The volumes of eye-opening literature she could have devoured? It boggles the mind. Then again, I don't think this is something we have to keep banging on about. We shouldn't confront the ignorant with their futile devotion to the unproven, for this will only strengthen their fantastic defences. Just leave them be - some of us can only flourish in a small world. I love you, MaryC.

Well, you, somehow, felt the necessity of responding to my reaction to fitz's "trifling scribble". If said "trifling scribble" is so beneath your superior intelligence, why deign to comment?

As you imply this is a very old article and unlikely to head the list of 'hits' resulting from typing "Christopher Hitchens" into a search engine. This means that you must have spent an inordinate amount of time surfing the net to find something to be offended by.

MaryC - "I'd say that Hitchen's is the one who deserved the verbal ass beating administerd by Fitz."

Hahahaha-HAHAHAHAHA! You're a fucking imbecile, MaryC and everybody who thinks like you is just as poisonous to humanity as all it's religions!

Fitz couldn't provide proper verbal nor literary competition if he were up against Peter Hitchens. Even his argument about parthenogenesis was conjured by a liar: He tries to accuse Christopher Hitchens of lying by using an actual and proven liar as a "credible" source. From Wikipedia, no less...

All you need to know about CitizenFitz is that he wants to attack Christopher Hitchens because Fitz, like all other theists, can't handle the truth. As soon as I read him bitching and moaning about Christopher Hitchens destroying theist arguments and the words "...he ignored the signs God was giving him." prove that Fitz is coming from a purely biased position, the Missionary Position.

Anything Fitz has to say about Christopher Hitchens is as nonsensical as anything MaryC had to introduce to the discussion. If you two wish to engage in any form of intellectual conversation now or in the future, know this: you're both poorly-equipped and ill-prepared for every possible encounter that you have no business being a part of, anyway. In other words, you're incapable of being as intelligent as you wish you were. Stay on the sidelines - where you belong - keep your mouth shut and your mind open.

PS: an adult, presumably, who goes by the name "Batman Inc" and uses the Batman sign as an avatar has some serious growing up to do before they dare to lecture others about anything.

Of course Fitz is biased. Hitchens was extremely biased, as are you, as is everybody.

If your hysterical, profanity-laiden screed is what results from immersing oneself in Hitchens and keeping an "open mind" (hilarious comment given that Batman Inc's mind is not only closed, it's padlocked), then I'll skip Hitchen's and keep my mind firmly closed!